W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg-ct@w3.org > April 2008

[minutes] CT call Tuesday 8 April 2008

From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 17:22:22 +0200
Message-ID: <47FB8DAE.8070607@w3.org>
To: public-bpwg-ct <public-bpwg-ct@w3.org>

The minutes of today's call are available at:
http://www.w3.org/2008/04/08-bpwg-minutes.html
... and copied as text below.

In short, we agreed to:
- stick to the title "Content Transformation Guidelines"
- replace abstract text with a clearer one (text in the minutes)
- replace editorial note in §3.2.3 by a real note (text in the minutes)
- slightly update the editorial note in §4.1.2 to fix the slightly wrong 
"idempotent" use.
- above texts updated, to ask the main body of the working group for 
approval of publication as FPWD

- for after the publication: rewrite 3.1 in a normative way and fusion 
it with 3.2. Real requirements will be actually listed in an updated 
version of the CT-landscape doc.

Jo also raised the idea of having a Workshop on content transformation 
to bring awareness and support from the industry. We'll investigate how 
this may be done in practice.


Thanks,
François.



08 Apr 2008

    [2]Agenda

       [2] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Apr/0009.html

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2008/04/08-bpwg-irc

Attendees

    Present
           francois, MartinJ, jo, SeanP, hgerlach, Magnus

    Regrets
           rob, bryan, kemp

    Chair
           francois

    Scribe
           SeanP

Contents

      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Presentation of the draft
          2. [6]About the title
          3. [7]About the abstract
          4. [8]Control by Administrative or Other Arrangements (§3.2.3)
          5. [9]Proxy decision to transform (§4.1.2)
      * [10]Summary of Action Items
      _________________________________________________________

Presentation of the draft

    <francois> [11]latest draft

      [11] 
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/TaskForces/CT/editors-drafts/Guidelines/080403

    Francois: Had ed. meeting with Jo about draft.
    ... didn't change any of the guidelines--just removed a couple of
    paragraphs and moved some things around.
    ... think it is much clearer this way.
    ... editorial notes were reworded to make easier to read.
    ... any comments?

    <Zakim> jo, you wanted to wonder if anyone had had the chance to
    read it?

    Jo: How many people have had a chance to review this?

    I read it.

    <Martin1> I read it but not very long ago

    Heiko: What about editorial notes at the end?

    Francois: Notes are things we are working on, like POWDER.
    ... I have a comment about section 3.2 that should be flagged as
    normative.
    ... Jo had a comment that maybe we should remove the sections that
    say that the rest of the section is "normative", "informative".
    ... I think we should keep the "normative", "informative" parts.

    Jo: I think we should switch the requirements as normative.

    Martin: What does it mean that requirements are normative?

    Jo: Good point. If we were to do away with 3.1 and put that into 3.2
    it is more a high level description of what proxies must do.
    ... Whatever we call it, I think 3.2 works as a normative section.
    ... Why don't we call it high level feature set or something like
    that.

    Martin: I think it would be enough to change 3.2 and call it
    something other than requirements.

    Jo: I am proposing that we remove requirements from this document
    altogether since requirements are already in the Landscape document.

    Francois: Probably doesn't need to be done right now,however.
    ... why don't we do that but not today.
    ... we'll state the requirements in a more formal way and put that
    into 3.2.

    <francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: for section 3, rewrite 3.1 in a
    normative way and fusion it with 3.2. Requirements are listed in
    CT-landscape doc

    <Martin1> +1

    +1

    <francois> RESOLUTION: for section 3, rewrite 3.1 in a normative way
    and fusion it with 3.2. Requirements are listed in CT-landscape doc

    Francois: Anyone have any objection to publishing the document as it
    stands as a FPWD?

About the title

    Francois: Dom suggested that we should change the title to reference
    "mobile"
    ... although there are no parts of the document that are specific to
    mobile.
    ... will probably get more exposure to the mobile communitiy if we
    include a reference to mobile in the titile.

    Heiko: You are correct that we should add "mobile".
    ... also we are not talking about CT, but requirements for the
    environment when CT is done

    Francois: I think if we add something like "prerequisites" it will
    lessen the impact of the doc.

    Heiko: We're not really talking about CT though.

    <Zakim> jo, you wanted to say the title should remain Content
    Transformation guidelines possibly with the addition of some mobile
    words

    Francois: I would prefer to stick with CT in the title.

    Jo: I think it should be named CT Guidelines...
    ... whether we should include mobile in the title--the guidelines
    are not specifically mobile.
    ... I think "mobile" is unnecessarily restrictive of scope.

    Francois: We are the "mobile" BPWG, so that should be good enough.

    <francois> Who wants to add a ref to "Mobile"?

    SeanP: Don't think it is necessary to change the title since it is
    from the "mobile" BPWG

    <dom> [but that won't be visible to most people before they actually
    start to read the document, FWIW]

    Francois: I actually was saying the opposite that someone from the
    public wouldn't necessarily know that it was from a mobile group.

    <francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: title stays "Content Transformation
    Guidelines"

    +1

    <Martin1> +1

    <jo> +1

    <Magnus> +1

    <francois> RESOLUTION: title stays "Content Transformation
    Guidelines"

About the abstract

    Francois: It was suggested that we come up with something less
    obsure for the abstract.
    ... I tend to agree that the abstract may not be really clear.

    <francois> This document provides guidance for content providers and
    content

    <francois> transformation proxies on how they can better work
    together to deliver

    <francois> Web content to mobile devices.

    Francois: Should we change it to something like what Dom proposed?

    <jo> How about: This document provides guidance to content
    transformation proxies and content providers as to how inter work .

    <jo> This document provides guidance to content transformation
    proxies and content providers as to how inter work when delivering
    Web content.

    SeanP: Dom's text looks good to me--we could use "mobile devices" as
    an example and not restrict it to mobile.

    <hgerlach> +1

    <francois> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: abstract text "This document
    provides guidance to content transformation proxies and content
    providers as to how inter work when delivering Web content"

    Heiko: The document should mention the past and the benefits for
    both sides.
    ... should include a sentence to highlight that.

    Jo: don't like including "better" since it anchors the doc to a
    point in time.

    Heiko: How about calling it "Interworking guidelines for content
    transformation proxies"?

    Francois: Seems less clear.

    Jo: Instead of spending a lot of time on this, why don't I try to
    come up with something that is more explicable.

    I'm OK with the proposed abstract text as well.

    <francois> RESOLUTION: abstract text "This document provides
    guidance to content transformation proxies and content providers as
    to how inter work when delivering Web content"

    Francois: We'll use the proposed text for the time being and maybe
    fix it later.

    Jo: We've got two editorial comments that we want to turn into
    actual notes.

Control by Administrative or Other Arrangements (§3.2.3)

    <francois>
    [12]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Apr/0016.
    html

      [12] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg-ct/2008Apr/0016.html

    Francois: In 3.2.3 there is an editorial note that we may want to
    change to an actual note (with some next text that will be pasted in
    momentarily).

    <jo> Allow and disallow lists generally cause intractable problems
    for content providers since there is no mechanism for content
    providers to establish which lists they should be on, nor any
    generic mechanism though which they can check or change their
    status. There is also no generic vocabulary for transformation
    options other than "on" and "off", which can more effectively be
    communicated using...

    <jo> Note:

    <jo> ...the cache-control: no-transform option.

    Francois: OK with the first sentence--I don't see the connection
    with the vocabulary for the transformation options.

    Jo: The point is that maintaining lists is a simplistic model for
    what people actually do.
    ... my assumption is that it is usually more than just yes and no.

    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Change current editorial note to say -
    Note: Allow and disallow lists generally cause intractable problems
    for content providers since there is no mechanism for them to
    establish which lists they should be on, nor any generic mechanism
    though which they can check or change their status.

    <francois> +1

    <francois> RESOLUTION: Change current editorial note to say - Note:
    Allow and disallow lists generally cause intractable problems for
    content providers since there is no mechanism for them to establish
    which lists they should be on, nor any generic mechanism though
    which they can check or change their status.

Proxy decision to transform (§4.1.2)

    Francois: Note on idempotency of GET requests.

    Jo: Dom mentioned that my definition for idempotent was wrong.

    Francois: Can change "i.e." to "and".

    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: in note on idempotent change i.e. to and
    and change must to is often

    Jo: Rob had the point about following a link from email.

    <francois> RESOLUTION: in note on idempotent change i.e. to and and
    change must to is often

    Francois: Should we replace the ASCII art with DOM's image?

    Jo: I may not use DOM's picture, but I'll replace that ASCII art.

    Francois: Everybody OK with publishing as FPWD?
    ... will present to the entire working group.

    <jo> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Request WG to ask for transition of CT
    Guidelines to FPWD

    <francois> RESOLUTION: Request WG to ask for transition of CT
    Guidelines to FPWD

    Francois: will probably publish at the beginning of next week.

    Heiko: Should we run it by some CT vendors?

    Francois: We have some CT vendors as part of the WG and task force.

    Jo: I think we should do some outreach on this. The purpose of the
    FPWD is to get more people to read it.
    ... What would people think about having a workshop on this to get
    some industry support.

    Magnus: I'll make sure our design team is aware of this.

    Martin: I think with workshop is a good idea although I can't commit
    to it yet.

    Jo: I think it would be a good idea for participants on this call to
    talk to their organizations about this.
    ... I think we should try to do something fairly soon.

    <jo> ACTION: Daoust to work with jo to figure out the details of a
    workshop on Content Transformation [recorded in
    [13]http://www.w3.org/2008/04/08-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]

    <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-730 - Work with jo to figure out the
    details of a workshop on Content Transformation [on François Daoust
    - due 2008-04-15].

    <jo> ACTION: jo to enact changes resolved in this meeting [recorded
    in [14]http://www.w3.org/2008/04/08-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]

    <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-731 - Enact changes resolved in this
    meeting [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-04-15].

    <Magnus> bye bye

    <hgerlach> cheers

    Francois: Remember to do your actions!

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: Daoust to work with jo to figure out the details of a
    workshop on Content Transformation [recorded in
    [15]http://www.w3.org/2008/04/08-bpwg-minutes.html#action01]
    [NEW] ACTION: jo to enact changes resolved in this meeting [recorded
    in [16]http://www.w3.org/2008/04/08-bpwg-minutes.html#action02]

    [End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 8 April 2008 15:22:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 April 2008 15:22:53 GMT